Your explanation still does nothing to address the problem being discussed which is a company that promises and contracts to deliver one thing and then delivers less than promised while still advertising that they deliver more. The problem here isn't spectrum crunch it's lying to the customers and then screwing them up the back side. A contract should be a contract but companies like this constantly feel like they have the right to arbitrarily change the terms of the agreement on they fly and anytime they want. A privilege that you, as the other party in the contract, have no power to do. It used to be that this would be called an "unconscionable contract" and declared null by the courts but that was before the companies owned the world and the government and the courts.
The BBB is an enormous waste of time. Companies with horrific service still have A+ ratings from BBB since all that's required that that they have a method for you to complain. Not that they have to respond or fix the problem. BBB is in business to make money from companies with memberships. They don't screw that up by giving companies a bad rating and they have no power at all over non-members.
John Fenderson did a great job of enumerating my objections to cloud storage. Out of that list I'd say that Megaupload has shown that you can't trust the cloud because you can't trust the government not to blow it up on a whim and at the bidding of their corporate masters. Secondly, ANYTHING that requires me to use Facebook for ID is out the window. That's nonsense.
You don't know how right you are. I live in the NW burbs of Chicago and I've seen a lot of BS. You can't point a camera at a cop and not record something illegal INCLUDING getting donuts. I was there several years back when the police used the police helicopter to land in the parking lot of the Dunkin Donuts to pick up some tasty food to take along. I've been asked for money. I've been asked for sex and I was once stopped so that the cop could check out my new car. This is a fine state to live in and I fully understand why they don't want anyone pointing a camera at them.
Going before a bunch of law professors and students to talk about "content theft" which doesn't exist it likely to get a lot of people who understand the legal meaning of words to point out that the correct term is "infringement" not "theft". I would suspect that the presentation of cooked and false information would go downhill from there.
Does he really think that if he just keeps on repeating these blatant lies someone, somewhere, will believe them?
Well yeah, he does believe that. Sadly, he's right. The people who believe him and do not challenge him are the media. They believe him and in turn they are the ones controlling the information that gets to the public at large. As long as he can keep them fooled (and apparently that's not hard) he has the public fooled.
I went to the site. Clicked on a link to create an account. Got a big blank blue box. Turns out the site doesn't work in Chrome. Tried again in IE. Got a form. Filled it out. Received a message to look for an email and to respond to it. No email came. Went back, tried to register again. Got message that email was already registered and to ask for my password. Asked for password. Got message that an email had been sent. No email received. Tried twice more. No emails. Not sure they really want to hear from the public.
So did you not read the articles or did you not understand them. At no point in any of the articles did it say that the student was reprimanded for stealing the laptop computer. That part would be you just making stuff up.
So, someone please explain to me how turning on a web cam help you locate a stolen laptop. I mean, unless you have a picture of every room in every house in Philly, all you really know is that the stolen laptop is "somewhere". If the laptop has GPS then you don't need the web cam. Am I missing something?
If "they" really want to get rid of a book with a lot of inappropriate sexual content "they" really need to collect the Christian Bible. That thing is full of violence, sex of every description, incest and a whole lot of things that "they" say is "shocking". To protect the children, I think we need to start a movement to remove this vile book from all public spaces and libraries. It's for the children. No. Really it is.